1 2025:CGHC:57014 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9496 of 2025 Faizal Ahamad S/o Late Pyare Saheb Aged About 24 Years R/o Behind Old SBI Bank, Ward No. 11, Ram Nagar, Supela, Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Range Cyber P.S. Durg, District Durg C.G. (As Per Charge Sheet) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivatava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.11.2025 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 03/2025 registered at Police Station – Range Cyber P.S. Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 61(2)(A) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(d) of the I.T. Act. 2. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 17.07.2025 passed in MCRC No. 5001/2025. 3. As per the prosecution story, the Police Station, Range Cyber P.S. Durg ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.11.25 11:28:35 +0530 2 received information from the Bhartiya Cyber Apradh Samanvay Kendra (Coordination Portal) operated by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, regarding mule accounts operating in Bandhan Bank, Smriti Nagar Branch, Hi-Tek Hospital, Bhilai, District Durg, IFSC Code BDBL0002284. The information revealed a total of 13 mule bank accounts. Upon inquiry, an FIR was registered, and during investigation, all 13 accounts were identified, leading to the implication of the respective account holders in the present offence. The police personnel also informed the concerned bank regarding these mule accounts. During investigation, it was found that significant fraudulent deposits had been made, including Rs. 40,45,600/- in the account of co-accused Anshul Tiwari, Rs. 65,000/- in the account of co-accused Lalit Kumar Chauhan, and Rs. 45,000/- in the account of co-accused Sanjay Kumar Sharma. The accused persons admitted to either selling or misusing their bank accounts for fraudulent activities. Based on the memorandum statements of the co-accused, the present applicant has been implicated on the allegation that he used to provide his bank account to the co-accused and received Rs. 20,000/- in return. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed. 4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that this is the second bail application of the applicant. It is further submitted that the co-accused, Premprakash Bandhe who is similarly situated with respect to the allegations and the nature of the offence, has been enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 1517310726 of 2025, vide order dated 31.10.2025. The principle of parity in bail is a well-established legal position, whereby similarly placed 3 accused persons should ordinarily be treated alike, unless there exists a material distinction justifying differential treatment. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is willing to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court while granting bail, including furnishing personal bonds, sureties, or any other conditions deemed necessary to secure his attendance during the trial. As such, the applicant is entitled to the benefit of parity with the co-accused and should be granted bail pending investigation/trial. He further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 23.05.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant but could not dispute the fact that the co- accused person has already been granted regular bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents as well as the fact that the co-accused, Premprakash Bandhe who is similarly situated with respect to the allegations and the nature of the offence, has been enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 1517310726 of 2025, vide order dated 31.10.2025, as such the principle of parity in bail cannot be overlooked, the applicant is similarly situated with respect to the allegations and the nature of the offence. No material distinction has been brought to notice which would justify differential treatment in the matter of bail. The applicant has also 4 undertaken to comply with all conditions that this Court may deem fit to impose to ensure his attendance during trial. In the said circumstance, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let applicant – Faizal Ahamad, involved in Crime No. 03/2025 registered at Police Station – Range Cyber P.S. Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 61(2)(A) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(d) of the I.T. Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of BNS. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial Court shall 5 initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of BNS. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial Court absence of the applicant are deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek